One of these people came out and said, "Dr. Epstein, I don't mean to scare you." He said, "But I based on what you've told us and the work you're doing," he said, "I I suspect that you're going to be killed in some sort of accident in the next few months." This Harvard scientist got death threats, not for politics, not for fame, but for exposing something most people aren't ready to hear. And it gets uh it gets bigger and bigger. But as it gets bigger, it also gets more scary because we we start to uh we start to run into uh push back, I suppose you could say. I mean, I've had other warnings, too. I've had other warnings. He said, "And I I just want to tell you two things." He said, "Number one, you have their attention. And number two, if I were you, I would take precautions. That's scary. We've had now six incidents in total. His name is Dr. Robert Epstein, trained by BF Skinner, published in Nature, respected in every academic circle, until he asked the wrong question. What if we're not as free as we think? But what they have done more and more is use very powerful techniques of mind control uh to control people's thinking and behavior literally around the world on a massive scale and they know exactly what they're doing. I mean for years I was just doing experiments and discovering these techniques and uh very skeptical always very skeptical and yet then replicating it or other labs have replicated these these same findings. The point is that over time I realized this is this is a really really serious problem and over time my findings were were also revealed by whistleblowers, leaked documents, leaked emails. What he found? Digital blacklists, DNA tracking, invisible algorithms that could reshape your beliefs entirely. And the bigger question is, if you're not the one choosing what you believe, then who is? Let's rewind the clock. Back in 2015, this Harvard trained psychologist published something that should have stopped the internet cold. Epstein called it the search engine manipulation effect or SEME. And what it proved is this. Simply changing the order of search results can silently shift a person's opinion. In his experiments, people were often shown different search results for neutral topics. That's it. No fake headlines, no ads, just links reordered. But the impact was massive. Up to 20% shifts in opinion. In some tests, it rose to 80%. And nearly n out of 10 people never noticed the manipulation had happened at all. They believed they had formed their own conclusions, entirely unaware that the path they walked down had already been laid out for them. And I was told this literally by Zack Vorhees, whom you may have heard of. He's one of the most prominent whistleblowers from Google. They can turn bias on and off like flipping a light switch. This wasn't some fringe internet hack. This was a repeatable effect. It worked in India. It worked in the US. It worked on people of all ages. Google didn't need to lie. It just needed to decide what came first. And the scary part, most people never even noticed it happened because once the belief had shifted, the browser tab closes and the trace is gone. But what if closing your browser isn't enough anymore? What if the system isn't just shaping what you see, but quietly rewriting what you are? Google started out as a search engine. Yet today, it owns your steps, your sleep, your heartbeat, and if you let it, your genetic code. In 2018, Google's sister company Verily launched Project Baseline, a nationwide health study collecting real-time biological and behavioral data. The goal obviously to predict illness before it happens, but the real goal that depends on who you ask. Around the same time, Google also held early investment ties to 23 andMe, the popular DNA testing service. And here's what Dr. Epstein reveals about Google using 23 andme devices to collect your information. That is how Google one of many methods Google has has come up with in recent years for getting your people's DNA information into personal profiles. If you can get DNA info in there for its value goes up and up and up as more discoveries are made about DNA and basically you can figure out what diseases people are prone to that they haven't even gotten yet. You can also figure out which dads have been cuckled. There are I mean DNA think about how much we know about DNA right now but then think ahead a year two 5 years the DNA doesn't change so that data has that's that's solid gold that becomes that goes up in value like the value of gold itself it just keeps going up in value not only this in 2020 the New York Times reported that Google offered to help manage a national DNA database voluntarily and at no cost but this isn't n't just about test tubes and lab coats. Google also owns Nest, the smart thermostat company. In 2019, Business Insider revealed that several Nest devices included undocumented microphones without any disclosure or public announcement. They were always on hardware in people's homes. Google called it a mistake. Critics called it a glimpse into a system that already sees and hears more than you think. Here's the truth. We didn't lose our privacy. We gave it away for cheaper gadgets, for cleaner dashboards, for one more feature on our wrist. But now Google doesn't just know where you go or what you watch. It knows what your body is made of and where your bloodline leads. You thought you were signing up for convenience. What you really signed up for was ownership. They just start out innocently and then someone or other realizes uh that they can use this to to change people's thinking and behavior. Let me tell you this. Before Google was a household name, before Chrome, before Gmail, before the maps in your pocket, it was just an academic experiment at Stanford. But even back then, powerful eyes were watching. I think we have to be fair here. the intelligence agencies. This is they were talking talking the '9s, so there was barely an internet. And the intelligence agencies, they had meetings about this growing internet thing. And they were worried about how it could pose a threat to national security. And one very legitimate concept that they were working with was that if there's more and more information posted out there and if someone wants to build a bomb that's going to be the first place they go. They're not going to go to their public library. They're going to they're going to go to this new internet which at that point was easy to use anonymously. So when they were talking and to some extent providing uh fund funding to people building these new these new search engines which are just basically big indices indexes right to what's on the growing internet. They basically were saying we we want to be able to track people who are looking stuff up especially certain stuff. In his 2018 book, Surveillance Valley, journalist Yasha Lavine exposed how early internet infrastructure was built for tracking instead of browsing. Lavine traced Google's origins back to the massive digital data systems or MDDS initiative. A project backed by intelligence agencies like DARPA, the NSA, and even the CIA. The goal, build tools to collect, analyze, and predict human behavior online. Google, yes, they started out with with help from intelligence agencies. Yes, they were definitely encouraged to uh to preserve search histories. One of those tools was Google's now famous algorithm, page rank. On the surface, it sorted websites by importance, but at its core, it measured intention. What people cared about, who they trusted, what they were likely to click next. It was a calculated prediction engine for desire. The deeper you go into Google's early funding and academic partnerships, the more it starts to look less like a tech company and more like a behavioral weapon. One designed not just to organize information, but to study, steer, and eventually shape the species that created it. And somewhere along the way, it stopped being a tool and became the master. If you now think that's the end of the story, it's not. We're only halfway down the rabbit hole. In 2019, a Google insider broke the silence. Zack Vorhees, a senior engineer at the company, walked out with over 950 pages of internal documents and handed them to Project Veraritoss. The files weren't theories. They weren't drafts. They were operational systems with names like YouTube blacklists, controversial search queries, fake news watch, and fringe ranking classifiers. Each of them was designed to do the same thing. control visibility quietly without notice. If a video, article, or creator didn't fit the preferred framework, it wasn't banned outright. It was just pushed into digital obscurity. You could still say what you wanted. You just wouldn't be seen. When the leak went public, Google didn't deny these systems existed. They called them part of their quality control infrastructure. But who decides what qualifies? What counts as truth? What gets ranked or removed? Dr. Epstein reveals it all. There's a section there on uh how Google makes those decisions. And I have and I'm quoting from an internal document at Google. It's about a 100page document that's meant for to train people to make those decisions about what content to suppress. M so I quote actual language from this internal uh training manual and you're you're just kind of guessing but when you actually see what's in the training manual you don't have to guess anymore because what it says over and over and over again I think 22 times over and over again it says well when you can't quite make up your mind just use your best judgment it gives tremendous personal discretionary authority to the people making these decisions and th those people are used to train the algorithms that are now making a lot of those decisions. And then for 40 minutes, the masks slipped, the filters fell away, and the world saw what it really means when Google decides to flip the switch. It happened on January 31st, 2009. For just over 40 minutes, Google flagged every website on the internet as harmful. Every single link was marked with a digital stop sign. Millions of users froze. Platforms crashed. The warning, "This site may harm your computer." But the sites weren't harmful. It was Google itself throwing the switch. The company later called it a human error, a rogue update in their safe browsing tool. But some cyber security analysts weren't convinced. They saw the event as something else entirely, a failsafe test, a controlled experiment to see what would happen if Google suddenly decisively pulled the plug. At that time, stock markets were closed. The damage was minimal. But the message couldn't have been clearer. Google doesn't just connect the world, it can disconnect it at will. And the scariest part, it didn't need to touch your files or your thoughts. just one silent update and reality as you knew it was offline. So when a courtroom finally called Google to the stand, you'd think the right questions would follow. They're still in the remedy phase of two big federal trials. Yes, those are going to determine very possibly those might bring about some big changes in the company and possibly enormous loss of revenue. But they didn't because sometimes a trial isn't about justice. It's about keeping the real crimes off the record. These cases are are are shams. Oh, they were designed, as far as I'm concerned, it is my opinion, that these these cases were designed by Google's lawyers. In January 2023, the US Department of Justice filed a high-profile lawsuit against Google. On paper, it looks serious. An antitrust case accusing the tech giant of monopolizing the digital ad market. News anchors debated it. Headlines called it a reckoning, but the questions no one asked were the most important ones about surveillance, psychological profiling, and mind manipulation. That part was left untouched. Again, Dr. Robert Epstein said it best in a 2023 podcast interview with The Hill. Even if they're forced to sell Chrome, Google wins. It gives the illusion of accountability while hiding the real levers. So, what would happen? You're going to force them to sell off Chrome? I said, "Who cares?" I said, "What?" So, I said, "If you force them to sell off Chrome," I said, "they'll get 500 billion dollars in cash for the sale." Cuz they do get paid, right? So, there's you force them to sell off Chrome. I said, "And they still get all the data." He said, "How would they get all the data?" I said, 'Well, whoever now owns Chrome is still going to use Google's quarantine list to check and make sure every website is safe before they take anyone there. So, Google gets all the same information or most of the same information or Google could pay them. They could have a back door that they didn't even know about. They could also build in a 100 back doors. He's not a politician. He's not selling a belief system. What he's trying to preserve is something a lot more fragile. your ability to think for yourself. So, here's what we're left with. Not just a search engine, but a silent architect of thought. A system that watches, nudges, rewrites, and calls it convenience. Dr. Epstein didn't expose a glitch in the matrix. He showed us the matrix is real. And if we don't start questioning what's being shown to us, the next belief they rewrite might be your own. Before I testified, one of a high-ranking executive from Google testified and the man under oath was asked by I think Senator Josh Holly, "Does Google have any blacklists?" And he replied, "No, Senator, we do not." Three weeks later, that's when that is when he's documents are made public. And there's a bunch of them called that are labeled blacklist. Now, think of the arrogance. Think of the arrogance. If I were running Google, excuse me, but if I were running Google and I was I had a bunch of blacklists, I would not call them blacklists. I might call them shopping lists, you know, anything but blacklists. I'd call them purple lists. Yeah. According to him, it isn't about market dominance anymore. It's about consciousness dominance. Because if a company owns the way people think, what does it matter who owns the software? The lawsuits feel loud, but the manipulation remains quiet. And that's by design. What the world sees is a regulatory battle over money and ads. What's actually happening is deeper. It's about a system preserving its power while the justice system trims a few leaves off the branches. And you can't fight what you can't see. That's why Dr. Epstein built a surveillance system of his own, not to monitor people, but to monitor Google. He calls it the monitoring project, where agents simulate real users. They browse, they search, they scroll, all while the system logs what Google shows them. No theory, just data.